HELP for “When mother hurts father” – UK style

In NZ, the debate about domestic violence hasn’t got past the “90% of domestic violence victims are women, so provide support services only for the women”. (The values are wrong AND the statistics are wrong!)

In NZ, 90% of serious assault victims and murder victims are male.

In UK, there are working helpline services which do offer support, counselling and assistance to men!

If there is a need, buy a telephone card, remember the time zone difference, practice your accent and make a call.

Alternatively, remember that one of the best ways to save yourself, is to give a little bit of help to others, who are momentarily in a harder situation than yourself. There is a real need for support givers in NZ. Add a bit of your energy to these support givers.

Thanks for your kind words. I am sure that you will live a little longer, for having said them. For a short time, kindness does help me with my well known impulse control problems.

Remember the Mainland advert – the ancient man says about his new friend “I’m sure in 40 years he’ll be a good friend!”.

The art is in placing trust, when people have shown they can honour it and they will honour it.

For all of the charm in the world, when we professionally measure the dangerousness of our friends, or of people who we might let care for a children for a short time, then we must find out about their total history of safely or dangerously caring for children.

Even without making careful enquiry, we can have quite a lot of confidence in a friend or neighbour, who has lived in our district for many years.

The person that has moved into the area, we just don’t know so well. Without putting in some effort to enquire independantly of what the person says about themself, then we could easily remain unaware of dangerous characteristics, sometimes lurking in their behaviour.

We really do want someone better than “hasn’t murdered a child on at least 290 days in the last year” caring for our children? This might sound pedantic, but would you want a carer who might have murdered children on up to 75 of the days in the last year, caring for your children? Beware of the gaps…...

Can we trust these people, what does their record say about them?Don’t trust what they say about themself, make your own enquiries…..

Gaps in the record can be difficult to impossible, to fill in. Children murdered, but with the perpetrator never identified, makes it hard for you to know someone is not dangerous. Impulse problems may show up in other ways in the long term record, such as lack of savings or major assets. The momentary problem shows up in the long term performance. (Unless they are a thief bigtime or drug dealer…..)

When considering people for a job, we are advised to enquire independantly from their referees, not to just listen to what they say about themself.

Public debacles in this line include the recent boss of the Immigration Department, with her self printed doctorate from the London School of Economics. She certainly got her qualifications cheaply and cost effectively! However, this disaster has cost the Government $millions to sort out and in terms of letting the wrong people into NZ as citizens. Women’s intuition was very unsuccessful at detecting this fraud. The solution is to do the work up front, to check independantly on the claims that the person makes about themself.

Put in the work, to make independant checks on their record, before you place trust.

The person who doesn’t give their name, or uses a false name and a 7 digit cellphone number, isn’t giving you traceability or accountability.

Our clean slate law doesn’t so much help people with a chequered past to re-integrate, it makes it easier for these people to repeat their old crimes, by making it harder for members of society to protect themself, from people who do need to be watched carefully and knowledgeably.

A key reason behind the accuracy of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG) lies in the way independent variables were measured. Rather than depending on clinical impressions of abstract psychological concepts or on clinical interviews, the VRAG variables were measured with reference to detailed and complete psychosocial histories.

As mentioned already, these histories more closely resemble biographies than autobiographies in their use of collateral sources and reliance on descriptions of actual behaviour, as opposed to self-report and hypothetical internal psychological states as explanations for behaviour. As such, the accuracy of the VRAG further weakens any remaining support for the idea that clinical intuition (or indeed any variables relying on unstructured clinical judgment) is to be preferred for the accurate prediction of violent recidivism.

In fact, the accuracy we have obtained for the VRAG, and especially the performance of file-based (as opposed to interview-based) PCL–Rscores in prediction (higher than reported by most other users of the PCL–R), has led us to wonder about the use of the PCL–R for violence predictions.

Given the defining properties of psychopathy (e.g., lying, conning, and glib speech), does the personal contact that occurs in an interview actually increase measurement error? Indeed, there is evidence that PCL–R scores based on documentary material might be better predictors of violent recidivism than PCL–R scores based on the more traditional file-plus-interview method.

This extract again affirms, don’t listen to what they say, look at the total record and what it says about them.

If you listen to what they say, then you could be degrading the quality of your assessment.

If the record is incomplete, work hard to fill in the gaps, they might come back and bite you hard!

We can easily see that the familycaught’s approach to weighing evidence, which is based on only partly reading affidavits and looking mainly for any easily seen lie, just isn’t doing the job of checking through the total body of evidence and understanding what it says. It is not at all surprising that their risk assessments are often far off the mark. These people just aren’t learning from their mistakes, they don’t have any incentive to even slowly get better.

This lazy, quick, convenient approach does save them time. This is essential, when they are charging $200 per hour!!!!

Our children would be far better protected, by employing people who are willing to do a competent, honest days work, at say $50 per hour. Then they would have enough time to check right through the evidence and understand the reality of the situation, rather than to just make a lazy guess, based on intuition, hope and prejudice.

Paying these “judges” just for being there, isn’t protecting vulnerable members of our community. We do need to look at the type of people we are appointing as judges and how well they are performing in their job.

If they are failing to deliver value for money, then we are idiots to delay in replacing them. But I don’t appoint judges, you say……..

You do make a choice, if you decide to take a dispute to the familycaught.

Like any other work, which will cost you money, you must check out their reputation for delivering a competent and cost effective performance. If they cannot do this reliably, then you would have to be dis-serving yourself and your children to even approach them. The art is in placing trust, when people have shown they can honour it and they will honour it. To protect your children, you will have to be the judge.

Similarly with employing a legal worker, to advocate for you in familycaught. If you aren’t confident of their performance, on exactly the type of problem that is biting you, then you need to ask around and make independant enquiries. If you don’t put in this effort, then you take a risk of being ripped off, like the Government was by Mary ???????, Secretary for Immigration. Damn, by the time the customer found out, it was too late. The art is in placing trust, when people have shown they can honour it and they will honour it.

I have heard many stories of a legal worker being well recommended, by other legal workers! The customer did not make independant enquiries. Later, it turns out that the legal worker had never done exactly this type of familycaught case. Damn, by the time the customer found out, it was too late, the money was gone and irretrievable.

Acting responsibly means doing your checks, before you place your trust in them. Stupid trust places your children in jeopardy.

I have been viciously criticised, for laughing at the way the familycaught removes children sometimes from good parents, after casual investigation, behind closed doors.. It has obviously failed to successfully act as cheques and balances, on the initial request to remove, coming from the social worker.

The familycaught cannot measure dangerousness, just like the social workers cannot measure dangerousness. We see this when they place the taken good children with care-givers who kill. Can we trust these people, what does their record say about them? To protect your children, you will have to be the judge.

If I jokingly refer to myself as an axe-murder, then possibly I am being self deprecating? Maybe I am hiding far darker and less excusable character defect(s) and I am trying to divert attention away from these? You will have to be the judge.

Anyway, this weekend I have the choice of taking it all seriously and going insane, or just laughing and maybe I could do something positive next weekend?

The voices seem to have stopped arguing and are telling me to take an easy weekend. I will just prepare and concentrate on stress relaxation and sharpening up my rhetoric, on my grindstone.

So Gerry, I ask that you protect me, my placing your trust in me, only as much as you know that I will honour it, based not on stupid trust – but on the record. To protect yourself, you will have to be the judge.

We should not trust people who hide the record of their performance, especially “judges”.

Above I pointed out that NZ abused men can access support services from UK. A new NZ website appears to offer some support services for men, although the largest providers focus on women and children only.

All of these schemes for identifying dangerous people, so that they may be locked up or more closely monitored, have shown to be insufficiently accurate and reliable, to be useful in practical situations.

You can piss people off, frustrate them and trigger them to murder, or suicide, or both, but any person who stops to apply wisdom can see that you would have less mayhem if you just treated them with normal human respect ie follow the rules of natural justice!

Why to the caught$ make such hard work out of it?
Bescause they scrape off more money by acting incompetently and dangerously themselves!

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Evan Myers Thu 24th May 2018 at 11:35 am on Budget 2018It's really just funding for an unregistered political party. It's acceptable because ... ?

MurrayBacon Wed 23rd May 2018 at 5:54 pm on Child Neglect – The Bomb in the BrainExistential Well-being Counseling: A Person-centered Experiential Approach This is a free course aimed at trainee counsellors. Although aimed at counsellors, (...)

Downunder Wed 23rd May 2018 at 2:03 pm on Budget 2018Interesting comment back here from 2009 National just gave another 2 mill budget increase to MOW when its slashing other (...)